That ship has sailed. These models were trained unethically on stollen data, they pollute tremendously and are causing a bubble that is hurting people.
It's so bizarre I see everyone happy using llms trained unethically, so they stop doing the only creative and interesting part of the whole SDLC and just become managers
There is no strong argument that they were "trained unethically". You can google or ask an LLM to argue pro/con that claim... but of course, you haven't, since doing so would itself violate your apparent worldview.
> so they stop doing the only creative and interesting part of the whole SDLC and just become managers
Bullshit (and, speaking as an old, incredibly whiny). Figuring out the right way to talk to yet another API is not the "creative and interesting part." Coming up with entirely new concepts and building them faster than I ever thought possible given that I have zero time to myself since I have a kid is literally the most "creative and interesting" thing I've experienced in my entire life. /shrug
I don't know what to say to folks like you anymore other than "byeeeeee, got too many ideas I can build now to waste time arguing with people who are simply not getting it... and maybe never got it in the first place because they got pushed into STEM instead of being cursed from the gods with it like I definitely did"
You very conveniently don't mention SpaceX the most well accomplished of his companies (and of any modern space company for that matter) -- I really don't believe SpaceX is as good as it is because of him though...
From my understanding (I might be wrong) the images are pre-built by the owner of the project right? I remember there being a form you fill and you receive a download link.
If that's the case what guarantees do I have there's no "funny business" on the image?
It runs entirely on LAN, ie; you just go to the vacuums IP address in a browser to control it. So you can block internet access for it if you're worried with no negative effects.
No, it is not. A constant is the direct opposite of a variable.
> An immutable variable..
There is no such thing. You can decide not to mutate it but variable is by definition mutable.
If you want to argue mutability, then you have to talk about the data structure or memory footprint of the constant or variable that it points to or represents, not the concept of variable or constant itself.
In other words, we can have var foo = 5 and const bar = 5. foo can be changed by being reassigned another value with simple foo = 6, whereas bar cannot as bar = 6 should cause panic/exception/... On the other hand, we can have var foo = {value: 5} and const bar = {value: 5} and now it depends on the language how it handles complex types like a struct/object as the operation now bypasses the guards on the variable/constant assignment itself. Will it guard against mutation or not? It should, but that is rarely the case. Hence, in most languages, we will be able to do foo.value = 6 and also bar.value = 6, even though we should not. But again, now we are arguing about the mutability of the data type or memory representation and not the variable/constant itself. Most languages don't care about mutability, so we have this flawed thinking where we are simply unable to strictly define what data is actually mutable and what data is not. Rust uses the borrow checker, that is one approach, but generally this should be properly handled by the language spec and compiler itself and we should not even have this conversation where programmers simply cannot make a distinction between variables and constants, let alone comprehend what those terms mean in the first place, as those meanings have been thrown out of the window by the folks designing the languages.
"Responsible" and "Ethic" are faaar gone.
reply